Dear Roger and 3WDave,
Roger wrote 18/8 8:25 -0400:
'My suggestion is that we do a widespread, multinational, multi-decade
initiative to develop affordable,
clean, renewable, SUSTAINABLE sources of energy. Kinda like the space
program, but including more nations. This would increase economic growth,
technology and science; strengthen our stability and adaptability; and it
would foster support between levels.'
I agree. My impression until now (but I may be misinformed) is that the
Kyoto agreement is an essential part of this: it tried to include as many
nations as possible in this initiative. In the end it wasn't much more than
agreement to put in the needed effort to reach certain goals at a certain
time and agreement over the way to measure the results of that effort and to
compare them with the goals. The agreement over the concrete form of these
efforts was very limited and left ample scope to do it our way. In my
opinion stimulating development of sustainable energy sources is the most
obvious way to reach the Kyoto goals.
My main criticism of the Kyoto agreement is, that its goals are not
ambitious enough and are projected to far into the future.
I consider global warming resulting from human activity to be highly
probable. If I am rightly informed the climate WAS much warmer when the
carbon that is now fossilized to coal, oil and gas was still in the
atmosphere. In the last couple of millions of years the global ecosystem
seems to have found a climatic balance (alternating ice-ages and warmer
periods) by a decrease in (CO2-inhaling) plant bio-mass when the average
temperature drops and an increase when it rises. To the extent that other
biological patterns of values don't interfere, bringing a high proportion of
'fossilized carbon' into the atmosphere again while preventing an increase
in plant bio-mass will sooner or later disrupt this biological pattern of
values balancing our climate.
As long as science cannot prove (or rather fails to show) other biological
patterns of values interfering with this mechanism, I consider this to be
the most likely scenario.
Indeed, 'higher level patterns that destabilize lower ones or visa versa, to
the extent that they endanger the whole or significant parts of the
hierarchy, do so at their own peril', as 3WDave wrote 15/8 13:41 -0500.
For me the above points to a social pattern of values destabilizing a
biological pattern of values at its own peril.
Intellectual patterns of values may interfere to stabilize the social
pattern of values that is imperiling itself. They can MOTIVATE development
of alternative sources of energy, more energy-efficient wealth production,
population decrease etc.. They MUST work WITH rather than AGAINST the stream
of social progress (the migration of social patterns of values towards DQ in
their own pace). Where people trust their governments to act on their behalf
(having democratically chosen them, like in the Netherlands) these balancing
intellectual patterns of values naturally (must) employ government and its
instruments (taxation, law-enforcement etc.). Where democracy is less
trustworthy or less trust-inspiring more trusted social institutions (if
available) will have to take the lead to form global coalitions to stimulate
these necessary balancing activities.
You both seem to fear that taxation of unrenewable resources and
energy-inefficient wealth production would undermine the ability of the
economy to develop alternatives. Don't forget however that taxes are spent
again (supposing strong enough democracy to prevent private hoarding by
government officials). They can be spent on subsidizing alternatives. They
can also be used to decrease taxation on renewable resources and sustainable
wealth production. Doesn't the Kyoto agreement leave enough room to
democratically and experimentally find the best way?
The amount of (redistribution of) taxation needed is far less than taxation
for military purposes. Unlike spending on the military, spending on
(subsidies for, tax-decrease for or direct investments in) development of
renewable energy and sustainable production pays a return in terms of a
better functioning economy. Military spending only reaps destruction, sooner
or later. (Europe found -internally- an alternative for military 'solutions'
to age-old international conflicts in European integration. That should be
possible on a global scale also.)
By the way, the 'environmentalist's dream' you scorn looks a little bit like
mine. I would phrase it as:
a more egalitarian global society (egalitarian implying equality of
opportunity) based on
1) less use of unrenewable resources (and economic growth only of the type
that doesn't use up resources),
2) a smaller population eating lower on the food chain especially in those
regions where ecosystems and social systems are overburdened and
3) sociocracy (an improved version of democracy in which arguments rather
than votes count and that can be applied in the whole of society and not
just in the political, public realm; see www.sociocracy.biz).
In my 'dream' some sort of market mechanism for 'rights to use unrenewable
resources' would be needed to give unsustainable production a price (and
make sustainable production more attractive) with as little need for
government bureaucracy as possible.
Would that also be 'less equipped to respond to environmental issues' in
your opinion?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST